On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:28 PM Brian Candler wrote:
> On 27/03/2020 19:41, Klaus Darilion via Pdns-users wrote:
> > DNS Master/Slave was not designed for dynamic IP addresses. As a
> > workaround you could use some overlay whoch provides a static IP
> > (OpenVPN, stunnel, ssh tunnels, ...)
>
>
My 'overlay' is a Hurricane Electric Tunnelbroker tunnel. SImple,
free, works great, provides stable IPv6 addresses which allow my
public secondaries to reach into my private network and talk to the
primary.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:28 PM Brian Candler via Pdns-users
wrote:
>
> On 27/03/2020
On 27/03/2020 19:41, Klaus Darilion via Pdns-users wrote:
DNS Master/Slave was not designed for dynamic IP addresses. As a
workaround you could use some overlay whoch provides a static IP
(OpenVPN, stunnel, ssh tunnels, ...)
Good point. Wireguard would be a great fit for this: it works very
DNS Master/Slave was not designed for dynamic IP addresses. As a workaround you
could use some overlay whoch provides a static IP (OpenVPN, stunnel, ssh
tunnels, ...)
Regards
Klaus
Gesendet über BlackBerry Work (www.blackberry.com)
Von: Matthew Monaco via
On 27/03/2020 16:23, Matthew Monaco via Pdns-users wrote:
What is PDNS protecting me from by requiring that the slave keeps a
list of master IPs in the `domains` table?
Notifies are optional and unreliable, so they can't be depended on.
By design, slaves contact the master periodically, to
Hello!
What is PDNS protecting me from by requiring that the slave keeps a list of
master IPs in the `domains` table? I think what I would like is for
notifies to be allowed from any address, to rely on TSIG to protect AXFRs,
and to use the SOA NS record for polling -- of course I'm wrong, I just
